UBER UPDATE INTL
UBER, LYFT DRIVERS WIN NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS
A federal judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction on Tues- day 28 July requiring the state to urgently pay unemployment insurance to Uber and Lyft drivers who have been waiting months to receive benefits. In the ruling, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall said there had been an “an avoidable and inexcusable delay in the payment of unemployment insurance” to drivers. She gave the state 45 days to process pend- ing and incorrectly denied claims, and ordered it to form a team of 35 employees to expedite the work. In May, Uber and Lyft drivers, along with the advocacy group New York Taxi Workers Alliance, sued the New York Department of Labour, alleging that it took several months to pay drivers, if they were to be paid at all, despite the DOL processing claims from other eligible workers in two to three weeks. The lawsuit also argued that the state hadn’t done enough to force Uber and Lyft to turn over driver earnings data that would signifi- cantly speed up the process of determining who is eligible and how much they’re owed. The ruling doesn’t make a determination about those claims, but it does say the drivers have strong enough arguments and that they would suffer “irreparable harm” without the benefits, and therefore the state must pay them now while the case proceeds in court. “We are closely reviewing the decision and considering all our options,” a spokesperson for NYDOL told Business Insider. “Regard- less, the DOL has been providing benefits to rideshare drivers in New York and is committed to continuing that support.” The state had argued in court documents that Uber and Lyft had slowed it down by playing “games” that kept it from getting access to the data it needed to process drivers’ unemployment insurance claims. Without Uber or Lyft reporting their earnings to the state, drivers cannot get their claims approved. In her ruling, Hall criticised the state for letting the companies “lead it by the leash,” saying that despite the companies’ “categorical refusal to provide wage and earnings information for drivers, it is the duty of NYDOL to obtain the necessary information.” A spokesperson for Uber told Business Insider the company “pro- vided all data the NYDOL requested so they could give independent workers financial assistance.” The companies have also challenged several states’ rulings that drivers are eligible for traditional state unemployment benefits - which are more generous than benefits offered during the pandem- ic under the CARES Act. New York courts have ruled that drivers are eligible for the more robust state benefits.
SECOND USA STATE SUES UBER AND LYFT OVER MISCLASSIFICATION OF DRIVERS
On Tuesday 16 July Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against Uber and Lyft on the grounds that their drivers are being misclassified as in- dependent contractors rather than employees. The state Attorney General (AG), Maura Healey, stated in a video message: “For years Uber and Lyft have built their billion-dollar businesses on a model that exploits drivers. Uber and Lyft set the rates. They alone set the rules. Drivers are employees.” Massachusetts has become the second state to sue the two app- based companies on the same premise after the California AG, Xavier Becerra, and city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, filed a lawsuit in May. Becerra recently filed a motion
AUGUST 2020
for a preliminary injunction that would compel the com- panies to reclassify drivers as employees within weeks. Healey continued: “The bot- tom line is Uber and Lyft have had a free ride for far too long. For years these companies have systemati- cally denied their drivers basic workplace protections and benefits, and profited greatly from it. This business is unfair and it’s also illegal under Massachusetts law.” However Uber and Lyft are now using the pandemic to argue that states seeking to challenge their classification of drivers are endangering jobs. “At a time when Massachusetts’ economy is in crisis with a record 16 per cent unemployment rate, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning an income,” an Uber spokesperson said in a statement. “We will con- test this action in court, as it flies in the face of what the vast majority of drivers want: to work independently.” Meanwhile, drivers have long complained about poor pay, lack of protections, and an inability to band together as a union to effect change. If the lawsuit is successful, tens of thousands of Mas- sachusetts drivers could be eligible for the type of benefits traditionally associated with full-time employment: health insurance, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and a minimum wage guarantee.
UBER AGREES TO PAY $3.8 MILLION DENMARK FINE OVER TAXI LAW: POLICE
Uber has agreed to pay a 25 million Danish crowns (c.£3 million) fine in Denmark, settling claims of breaching local taxi law out of court, Danish police said on July 10. After launching its service in Denmark in 2014, Uber was criticised by taxi driver unions, companies and politicians who said the com- pany posed unfair competition by not meeting the legal standards which are required for established taxi firms.
UBER LOSES BID TO BLOCK CLASS ACTION IN AUSTRALIA
Australian taxi drivers have taken Uber to court in a class action in which they are claiming damages for loss of income after UberX began operating in Australia. In the latest round of the court proceed- ings, Uber has lost a bid to have the class action thrown out of court. The legal firm behind the class action alleges UberX is “unlawful” and has not been operating under the regulations, accreditation proce- dures and licence fees that apply to taxi, hire car and limousine drivers. More than 6,000 drivers are involved in the class action, with a lead plaintiff in Victorian taxi driver Nicos Andianakis. The rideshare giant argued in the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal that a class action could not be brought against it in Victoria because it was an international company. But three Justices reject- ed the bid to have the case thrown out. Uber had claimed there were five reasons the class action should be thrown out, all of which were rejected by the Court of Appeal.
91 2
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
